1. WHETHER THE SECOND CIRCUIT WRONGLY DISMISSED PETITIONER'S PETITION AS MOOT BEFORE ALLOWING HIM THE OPPORTUNITY APPEAL TO SHOW THAT HIS APPEAL MEETS THE CASE OF CONTROVERSY REQUIREMENT UNDER ARTICLE III OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION?

2. DID THE SECOND CIRCUIT THROUGH PETITIONER PETITION EN BANC RECONSIDERATION SUPERVISED RELEASE SENTENCE EXPIRED BY MONDAY RELIANCE ON UNITED STATES V. PROBBER, NO. 11-345 (84 CT. 1 W) WHEN PETITIONER IS SEEKING IN AGGREGATED JOY-YEAR CONCURRENT IMPOSED SENTENCE FOR BOTH HIS AND RIFLE DRUG CONSPIRACY CASE AND SUPERVISED RELEASE CASE CONVICTION'S SINGLE REVOCATION OF SUPERVISED RELEASE?

3. IS PETITIONER'S APPEAL MOOT WHEN HE HAS OPEN MOTIONS OF SUPERVISED RELEASE AND SUMMARY APPEAL WARRANT IN THE MASSACHUSETTS DISTRICT COURT THROUGH ITS FILED AND PRETRIAL TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION ON PETITIONER'S SUPERVISED RELEASE BOTH VERMONT COURT UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 3605?

4. IS PETITIONER'S APPEAL MOOT WHEN DISTRICT COURT FAILED TO APPOINT PETITIONER ON COUNSEL FOR HIS REVOCATION OF SUPERVISED RELEASE PROCEEDING UNDER THE FIFTH AMENDMENT AND PROCEEDED TO CONVICT PETITIONER OF TERMINATION OF SUPERVISED RELEASE BASED ON A SEALED ON THE VERMONT DISTRICT COURTS DOCKET WITHOUT PETITIONER BEING NOTICED OR WAS AWARE EXISTED AND THEN SENTENCED PETITIONER OVER THE AUTHORIZED STATUTORY MAXIMUM WITHOUT CONSIDERING A SINGLE 18 U.S.C. § 3583 FACTOR AS REQUIRED BY ORDINANCES UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)?

5. IS PETITIONER'S APPEAL MOOT WHEN MASSACHUSETTS REVOCATION OF SUPERVISED RELEASE AND UNRESOLVED AND UNRESOLVED SUPERVISED RELEASE VIOLATIONS WERE USED TO MAKE ADVERSE AND PRETRIAL DETERMINATIONS IN PETITIONER'S VERMONT CASE UNDER PETITIONER DRUG RELEASE CONSPIRACY?

6. DOES THE LIFTING BENEFITS APRIL SLIDING RULES THAT REQUIRE'S 18 U.S.C. § 3583 PROTECTED IN TONE BARRED UNDER THE AEDPA AGAINST THE CASE OF CONTROVERSY REQUIREMENT MODEL AFFECTING OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION REMOVING PETITIONER'S APPEAL BELOW REVIEWED?

7. IS PETITIONER'S APPEAL MOOT WHEN THE DISTRICT COURT FAILED TO DOCKET PETITIONER'S TIMELY FILED OCTOBER MOTION FOR STAY OF APPEAL BOTH HIS OWN CONSPIRACY AND REVOCATION CONVICTION'S SENTENCE CURRENT BOUND AND DOES SUCH A STATUTE VIOLATE THE FIFTH AMENDMENT AND REQUIRE THAT HIS 30-YEAR CONCURRENT-IMPOSED SENTENCE IS VIOLATED TO ALLOW PETITIONER TO RETRACE RIGHT TO EXERCISE THE LOST OPPORTUNITY THAT HE HAD PROPERLY PRESERVED?

8. IS PETITIONER'S IMPOSED SUPERVISED RELEASE TERM TOLLED UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 3624(

Whether the Second Circuit wrongly dismissed petitioner's appeal prematurely as moot before allowing him the opportunity to show that his appeal meets the case or controversy requirement under Article III of the United States Constitution